ROBERT LOUIS GIVENS, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Robert Givens appeals his conviction for failure to register as a sexual offender, challenging the constitutionality of Florida's sexual offender registration statute on due process and ex post facto grounds. The Second District Court of Appeal affirms the conviction, holding that the registration requirements do not violate either constitutional protection.
The court held that the sexual offender registration requirements do not violate procedural due process, as the relevant fact is only whether the defendant has been convicted of a specific crime and procedural due process protections attach to the conviction itself, not to subsequent regulatory consequences. The court also held that application of section 943.0435 does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because the statute is procedural in nature and nonpunitive.
[1] Procedural due process does not entitle a defendant to a hearing to establish whether he or she is dangerous before being subject to sexual offender registration and noti…
[2] Florida's sexual offender registration and notification requirements do not violate procedural due process.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“procedural due process "did not entitle the defendant to a hearing to establish whether he or she was dangerous, as that fact was not material under the statute."”
Establishes that due process does not require a dangerousness hearing because dangerousness is not a material fact under the statute.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGivens was convicted of failure to register as a sexual offender under Florida's sexual offender registration and notification requirements (sections …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Failure To Register As A Sexual Offender cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
Robert Givens appeals his judgment and sentence for failure to register as a sexual offender. He contends that the sexual offender registration and notification requirements are unconstitutional as a violation of due process and that application of the registration statute to him violates the Ex Post Facto Clause. We affirm.
Givens argues that the sexual offender registration and notification requirements in sections 943.0435 and 944.607, Florida Statutes (2001), violate procedural due process because he was not afforded a hearing to determine whether he was a danger to the public before being subject to the statutory requirements. After the parties filed their briefs, this court in Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003), held that the Florida Sexual Predators Act, section 775.21, Florida Statutes (2000), does not violate procedural due process and declined to follow Espindola v. State, 28 Fla.
L. Weekly D222, — So. 2d —, 2003 WL 118634 (Fla. 3d DCA Jan.15, 2003).
Givens states in his brief that his argument is the same as in Espin-dola, and he relies on that case to support his position. In Milks this court recognized that the United States Supreme Court had recently held in Connecticut Department of Public Safety v. Doe, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003), that under a Connecticut sexual offender statute, procedural due process “did not entitle the defendant to a hearing to establish whether he or she was dangerous, as that fact was not material under the statute.” Milks, 848 So. 2d at 1169. The relevant fact is whether the defendant has been convicted of a specific crime, and the defendant is entitled to procedural due process before that conviction is entered. See id.
Although Milks dealt with the sexual predator, not sexual offender, designation, we note that the sexual predator requirements are more onerous than the sexual offender requirements. Furthermore, the Fifth District has specifically held that the sexual offender registration and notification requirements do not violate procedural due process. See Johnson v. State, 795 So. 2d 82, 89 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). We agree and hold that Givens’ procedural due process rights were not violated.
Givens also contends that the sexual offender registration statute violates ex post facto principles because section 943.0435 was enacted after Givens began serving his sentence. Again, after the parties filed their briefs, the United States Supreme Court held in Smith v. Doe, — U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1140, 155 L.Ed.2d 164 (2003), that the Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act is nonpunitive and that, therefore, its retroactive application does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. In addition, the First and Fourth Districts have held that section 943.0435 is procedural in nature and does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. See Freeland v. State, 832 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002); Simmons v. State, 753 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
We agree and hold that the application of section 943.0435 to Givens does not violate ex post facto principles.
Accordingly, we affirm Givens’ judgment and sentence for failure to register as a sexual offender.
Affirmed.
STRINGER, J., and THREADGILL, EDWARD F., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
DeJESUS v. State, 862 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…ment of Public Safety v. Doe, 538 U.S. 1, 123 S.Ct. 1160, 155 L.Ed.2d 98 (2003). Both the Fifth and Second District Courts of Appeal have upheld Florida’s sexual offender statute. Johnson v. State, 795 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Givens v. State, 851 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). More recently, this court upheld Florida’s more restrictive sexual predator statute against similar attack in Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). For the reasons expressed in these cases, we now join the second an…
-
Demick v. State, 871 So. 2d 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004)…2003), Reyes v. State, 854 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003), Jones v. State, 855 So. 2d 715 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). See also Therrien v. State, 859 So. 2d 585 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Martin v. State, 864 So. 2d 589, 589 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004); Givens v. State, 851 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003). Accordingly, we affirm the order denying relief. Again, we certify conflict with Espindola v. State, 855 So. 2d 1281 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). FARMER, C.J., GUNTHER and HAZOURI, JJ., concur.…
-
Newell v. State, 875 So. 2d 747 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…argues that section 943.0435 violates procedural and substantive due process requirements.1 Procedural due process challenges to section 943.0435 have previously been rejected by this court and other district courts of appeal. See Givens v. State, 851 So. 2d 813 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003); Dejesus v. State, 862 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003); Johnson v. State, 795 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Accordingly, we conclude that the trial court did not err by denying Newell’s motion to dismiss as to procedural due proce…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Smith v. DOE, 538 U.S. 84 (U.S. 2003)
- Conn. Dep't of Pub. Safety v. DOE, 538 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2003)
- Milks v. State, 848 So. 2d 1167 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)
- Simmons v. State, 753 So. 2d 762 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)
- Tyjuan Wilbert Johnson v. State, 795 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Freeland v. State, 832 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002)
- Hilton v. State, 832 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)